tv [untitled] July 13, 2012 10:30am-11:00am PDT
place. it rains a lot here and our fields get wet. my daughter had happened for soccer games this spring season canceled. i remember this growing up. i had tons of twisted ankles all the time. one of the volunteers said that i broke my ankle growing up. we do not have an area of dwindling financial resources. this is a solution. it is not perfect. i also want to commend the rec and park staff for what they have done. golden gate park is a very special place for our city and residents. it is ok to adapt to the needs of our citizens. it has been emphasized so much. especially for the kids that
stuck around. it shows dedication. one of the biggest issues is, it is a lack of playing facilities in stethoscope. i got to throw out the first pitch for san francisco little league. 700 families signed up in seven hours on line. they had to close the league off. there are not enough fields to play. they were willing to partner with us and really leave a legacy here in san francisco. we should really take advantage of that and to thank people for stepping forward to do that. i want to thank the supervisor for his comments. triple the playing time on fields, increase the playing facilities. keep the kids on the sports
fields. it is a win-win situation. >> thank you very much. we are given the duty of determining whether the eir duty is adequate and complete. as far as i can tell, based on what the department presented, i agree that it is adequate. i will be supporting it. as we were going on and on on the discussions on the beach chalet, many of you saw the chief and i talking on the sideline. this is inside the baby district. one of the things we pataki about and i was surprised to see him. i would like to thank the supervisor for bringing him, and giving him an opportunity to speak. the reason he was here was to talk about the importance of kids' activities and teaching them team building principles as
well as a value on themselves and their lives. to the coaches that came out, thank you very much for taking interest in young people and being a deterrent to gangs or other activities. every child does not necessarily fit into that category. it is a reality that i deal with on a daily basis. i would like to thank that we would all be taking the seriousness of gun violence to heart. i would like to see the naturalists and the coaches and the parents just as committed for all of our kids' health and well-being here in san francisco. we have heard a lot about the need to continue to build
capacity in all of our parks. so i look forward to the ongoing discussion about how we can better utilize the park. i would have to say that i was moved by the shared values that the audubon society and the sierra club can a lot of the nature preservationists' came out. their arguments about golden gate park remaining healthy and whole and full of grass, that struck a chord with me. many of the people here grew up in san francisco. the first 10 years of my life were spent in the richmond district. i grew park riding my bike along side the great highway in cite golden gate park. there still is a soft part in my heart for the preservation of a natural whole and healthy golden
gate park. that being said, i will uphold the eir because i agree with supervisor wiener's comments about needing to be dynamic and adjusting to the changing needs of our city. thank you, mr. chair. supervisor avalos: thank you. this has been a very difficult hearing for me. a difficult decision that i see before me on this issue. i want to thank members on both sides of the public who have given testimony. the kids who have been here. it is very late. hopefully, they are in bed now. there is a lot of passion about our parks. i really feel that i had been
clinging to the part of golden gate park remaining a grasp park. that is something that i feel really strongly about. seeing the changes to the park that are inevitable, it is very hard to see that change going to turf. it seems like that is where the votes are. i was the director of a midnight soccer program. that was back in 1995. i really see the value of having soccer as an available recreation activity for young people. i believe that the decision we have today is expanding the opportunity for those of us in the city. i see that as a great good. i have talked to numerous people in my community and my
community of parents with kids. soccer parents, dads and moms. it is unbelievable, the need for greater recreation opportunities. i do see a loss in what golden gate community should be like. i believe that will create a glow over the park. i see the glow that happens there. it is a part of the part that had been traditionally unsay for a number of years. it is a lot safer now. barring the fact of the parts of a lot of the bleachers, it is a lot safer than it was before. last night, i went up to the park. the glow of the park was
evident. i was told that the lights are burley eliminating just the field. they do not have a lot of spillage. the glow is something that is very discernible. we see a glow even with the changes that have come forward with the eir. i think there will be a glow at the beach. i do feel when it comes to this eir that it was necessary. that resulted in changes that will be less impact fall. that was something of that was a good process. we will not be able to achieve that process. i believe that it was pharaoh.
i want to be supporting the project and seeing the greater good that will come from it. >> supervisor campos. supervisor campos: by will try to keep the comments short. we are all tired. i do agree with the comments with other projects and proposals that involves rec and park that we stay away from the personal attacks. i do not believe that is the san francisco way of doing things. we can have a disagreement without personalizing those agreements. people are trying to do the past job for the city. we need to move away from that. it is important for us to talk about how we talk about these projects. i do not think that anyone on either side of this issue has a monopoly in terms of caring for
children. i think that is consistent that you can still care about the future of kids and kids having access to recreational activities. height do not think you decide this issue has a monopoly on that. you have to be careful about how we present those issues. i also believe that the alternative that has been talked about is one that i wish that more consideration had been given to that. we have heard from rec and park about the fact that the eir considered different alternatives. i appreciate that consideration. the number of kids that would be impacted, the number of ours, those are numbers that were
given to us recently. i wish that analysis has been done in advance. personally, i do not necessarily feel that having artificial turf in golden gate part is the right approach for the city and county of san francisco. i am not convinced that that is where we need to go. i do not share some of the concerns that supervisor avalos has noted. the problem we have with this process is that the board of supervisors is being asked to vote on an eir, but we are not being asked about the substance of the proposal. that is something that has been decided by the other agencies. that is not something that comes back to the board of supervisors. what is with the supervisors is the adequacy. i wish they had the looked into
the alternative solution the even more so. legally, hearing the discussion next -- that the presentations have to say about that, they were not legally required to look beyond what they actually did. based on that, i think that the right legal results notwithstanding is to uphold the eir. i came into the hearing having a different perspective. the law is clear in terms of what is required. i wish we did not have to go down that path. i think that is the result that is required under the law. i would hope that there would be continued efforts to address some of the concerns of the neighborhood including issues around lighting and making sure we have ways of minimizing the
impact. i would hope that not withstanding this decision today that we would consider in a future not too far away the prospect of bringing back grass into golden gate park. there are various reasons we are going down this path. we hope that we would keep that option open. some criticism has been made about the process that got us to where we are where we had to do an eir. i am very happy and proud that we went through the eir process. golden gate park is such an institution that i think on something of that importance that we should engage in the kind of process that we went through. it is the kind of process that made this project better. it is something that we should be proud of.
there may be other issues that people have with ceqa. this points to how we could do things the right way. the fact that you follow a certain process can bring people together. for those reasons notwithstanding reservations, i would be voting to uphold the eir. supervisor olague: we have another item after this apparently. i will not be supporting the motion. i support the arguments that the appellant gave this evening. some of the issues that were raised i think are of concern, particularly as it relates to the inadequacy of the eir describing how the project will contribute to scenic resources.
how the project will substantially degraded existing quality of the site. i don't believe that enough's care has been given or analysis to the creation of this that will effect evening or nighttime views of the area. it goes against the character of golden gate park to introduce something like astroturf. i just cannot support -- the project is not before us. i believe that the eir gives adequate analysis to judge the project if that is what i was doing. president chiu: colleagues, city staff and all of those who have been working so long on this
issue, thank you. this issue has not been easy for many of us, myself included. as somebody who played youth soccer and somebody who loves the beach chalet area. that is one of my favorite spots outside of my district. i love to spend time there, especially near the beach. i have seen both sides. i will be supporting supervisor mar's motion. i agree with supervisor campos. while this is complete, i hope that the parks and rec department will continue mitigating issues are brown lighting and make sure that we are using the latest and safest technology is for our young people. that being said, tackling family flight 4 san francisco is difficult. family flight from our city has
led to sprawling suburbs, which we know is not smart growth which we know is not good for the environment. it is my hope that as we make tough decisions to keep families in san francisco, we will be making them in a way that will be good for the environment. i think that this will actually happen with this project. colleagues, it looks like it is time for a vote. supervisor wiener: aye. supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor campos: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: aye. supervisor cohen: aye. supervisor elsbernd: aye. supervisor farrell: aye. supervisor kim: aye. supervisor mar: aye.
supervisor olague: no. >> there are 10 ayes and 1 no. president chiu: it is affirmed. colleagues, ladies and gentlemen. we have one final appeal. i would like to thank all of the members of the public to have been waiting patiently for this final appeal. >> before we head down to the bonfire at the beach, items 36- 39. they comprise the public hearing to persons interested in the decision of the department of public works the dated may 31, the 2012 s with a two-unit multi you subdivision. item 37 is the motion approving the department of public works decision to approve the parcel map. and item 38, to disapprove the
decision. item 39 is the motion to approve the clark's finding. >> if i could ask those of you to please take your conversations outside with respect to this final appeal which we will hopefully move through quickly. we have an appeal of the tentative parcel map. for this hearing we will consider whether the tentative parcel map for this addressed is consistent with the general plan or any specific plan that applies. as we have proceeded in the past, we will first hear from the appellant. we will then take public comment from individuals speaking on behalf of the appellant. we will then hear from representatives of the department of public works and the planning department who will have up to 10 minutes to describe the grounds for the decision to approve the tentative parcel map. falling -- following department
presentations, the departments will be able to present. we will hear from persons up ready to present. we will have three minutes from the appellant for rebuttal. unless there are any questions, we will proceed in this way. unless there are any opening comments, why do we not hear from the appellant? >> good evening, mr. president. members of the accord. it has been quite an evening news. i will see a bank i can make my comments relatively short. i am here regarding the tentative map that was issued. i am here for the neighbors. i am appearing on behalf of steve williams to representing neighbors in this matter. we are appealing this on two reasons. the approval of the tentative map is not consistent with the general plan. it violates ceqa. let me go into both of those.
the san francisco general plan mandates that new construction and is in existing neighborhoods. the tentative map that was approved in this issue is approved under the state map act. that requires consistency with general local plants. there is no consistency with the general character of the neighborhood. what i am specifically talking about is we are talking about inserting an out of scale tall structure. if with a look at the overhead, and this is the existing view from sutter st.. that would be up at the corner. this will be the new addition. this is a modern glass and steel building.
supervisor wiener: was this not all covered in the ceqa appeal under the court -- conditional use appeal? we adjudicated the issues that you seem to be raising. how is this different? >> let me explain that to you. the difference is that the state map act does not allow you to exempt yourself from the general plan. in ceqa you are allowed to consider sequencing of the plans. in order to get out of the zoning requirements, a special use district was created. that specific location was created. what this tentative map has done as change one lot into two lots. we are changing out the package that was submitted to the board
into a different package. >> is the project somehow different than what we certify before under ceqa? >> yes, in the sense that you never would have certified this project if it was not as a combined project. this was submitted as a planned unit development. supervisor wiener: has this plan changed since you submitted the eir? >> >> it generated two separate parcels for the location. supervisor wiener: was that not anticipated? >> if and had been previously desired, the project sponsor should have presented the map request that the same time. they chose to pigeonhole the map. with the planning unit you are able to get around the parking requirements and generate a host of the exemptions. they are putting in a 50-unit
condominium s in an adjacent facility. neither one bank of those would have been approved without the combined project put together. the usable space requirement requires 15 it usable square feet for the actual number of units to get in. you are proposing that if the lots are combined, you actually would have 9800 square feet. when you separate out the lots, the 1500 condos only have 400 units of free space. you are changing the product out. we have subdivided one project into two separate projects. white it is a financing issue, i am not sure. the project today is different than the project was presented. >> please continue.
>> in essence, i have been able to address supervisor wiener's questions to highlight the bulk of my point. if this project had been intended to be subdivided into two different sub projects all along, it should have been submitted as such. we have a package deal that has been subdivided into two package. it is different than what was approved by the board previously. that is where i see the violation of ceqa. the information presented to the board is not the same information on which you will be moving forward and endorsing this project. turning back to the diagram just for a moment, this revolves around the issue of character. i mean the character of the
neighborhood and the character of the new addition to the neighborhood. this is a modern glass and steel structure. adjacent to it is a single-story building. we are talking about a structure in the front. this is a substantial change to the neighborhood that was largely built in the late 1900's. thank you. president chiu: are there any members of the public here to speak on behalf of the appellants. i know it has been a late night. why do we not go to the department called presentations? >> good evening, members of the board. i am the joined by the project planner from the planning department. also the city, county surveyor. as you have heard, this is a tentative parcel map
subdivision. you are very familiar what what that means. presidio has been split and it divided into a two parcels. the project itself has not changed in any respect. the project would be the same project you reviewed a year ago. it would have 50 affordable housing units. it would have the community facilities. the gym, day care center, and all of the other supporting uses. there has been no change to the project. the only change that i saw was the photo that was put on the overhead is an thephoto that does not represent the project. we have more accurate photos that could be posted. last year, the same appellant raised the same questions.
you considered both the ceqa appeal and the conditional use. the board resoundingly up healthy eir and it reissued the conditional use authorizations. since last year's hearing, the appellant has kept up and taken the matter and challenges your approval before the superior court. in april of this year, they in its entirety. the court found that the eir is adequate and the conditions the u.s. permits were properly issued. that included the termination of this project is a consistent with the plan. our staff reviewed consistency findings. that was part of the cu application. this project is consistent with the general plan. unless there is some significant
reason why the project has changed and subdividing a project does not change a project. we know you have a three-unit building carrying it is currently apartments. that does not change the fact of the intensity of the development or the height of the development. we do not even consider a partnership when we are revealing something for planning purposes. we have submitted nearly 300 pages of documentation that would fourth buy our general plan findings. i will spare you guys that summary tonight unless there are questions. if i have a full list of the general plan policies. it provides the transition from the intense development around the muni to some of the more